BABU LAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -Heard learned counsel for the parties. Previously petitioner was granted mining lease in respect of an area (Zone No. 14/12) which is not in dispute in the instant writ petition. It appears that petitioner also raised the minerals unauthorisedly from the adjoining area (Zone No. 14/11) which was not allotted to him hence District Magistrate, Allahabad issued a notice to the petitioner on 31.3.2004 calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why total amount of Rs. 9 lacs must not be directed to be deposited by him. In the said notice price of the illegally raised mineral was stated to be Rs. 1,80,000 and it was further stated that royalty comes to five times of the price hence under Section 21 (5) of Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act 1957 petitioner should deposit Rs. 9 lacs. Thereafter in terms of the said notice an order was passed by the District Magistrate on 21.6.2004 determining that petitioner was liable to pay Rs. 9 lacs as indicated in the notice. Section 21 (5) of the aforesaid Act is quoted below : "Whenever any person raise, without any lawful authority, any, mineral from any land, the State Government may recover from such person the mineral so raised, or where such mineral has already been disposed of, the price thereof, and may also recover from such person rent, royalty or tax as the case may be, for the period during which the land was occupied by such person without any lawful authority."

(2.) AGAINST the order dated 21.6.2004 petitioner filed appeal before Commissioner being Appeal No. 1 of 2005.

(3.) EARLIER petitioner was granted mining lease for another zone (No. 14/12) and he was found to be raising minerals unauthorisedly from the adjoining zone (No. 14/11). This conduct of the petitioner was such that it disentitled him for grant of any mining lease in future. If a person has once abused the terms of the lease then there is no guarantee that he will not do the same thing again if he gets an opportunity for the same. Illegal raising of minerals by a completely unconcerned person may easily be detected but if lessee of a particular portion illegally raises the mineral from the adjoining portion then it is not always easy to detect the illegal action. Accordingly, such lessees are liable to be dealt with more severely. The finding of District Magistrate in his order dated 21.6.2004 that petitioner illegally raised minerals from the land which was not allotted to him but was adjacent to the land allotted to him has been confirmed in appeal by the Commissioner and has become final. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner only the quantum of damages has not been finalised yet. Even if this argument is accepted, petitioner is not entitled to grant of another mining lease as finding of illegal raising of mineral has become final against him.